The consultancy giant PwC promoted the work of a company it part-owned in a report it produced for the federal government about Australia’s digital mental health strategy – while being paid $1m for the “independent” advice.
PwC’s 45% shareholding in Innowell was declared to the government before the contract was awarded but not in the final report which was delivered in November 2022. A disclaimer section states the firm “acted exclusively for the Australian government department of health and considered no one else’s interests”.
Health experts, academics and unions argue the review could not have been completely independent because in 2017, Innowell Pty Ltd was awarded $33m by the federal government to develop a digital mental health platform, also called Innowell.
The PwC report referenced key findings from trials of the Innowell platform conducted by Innowell.
“The Innowell Project Synergy report ... finds that people generally trust mental health products and services that are endorsed and recommended by their networks and peers,” the PwC report stated.
“Evidence shows that embedding the lived experience in the design and delivery of services can improve outcomes and recovery.”
But some mental health clinicians and researchers have questioned the evidence the PwC report relied on.
Dr Piers Gooding, a socio-legal researcher with the University of Melbourne who studies digital mental health tools, said: “Questions must be asked about why a consulting firm that’s pursued a mendacious tax avoidance strategy is advising government on mental health policy, a sector with highly limited resources made all the smaller by corporate tax avoidance.”
PwC argues the final report was, once published, a government document and that it would have been inappropriate to interfere with it. The firm insisted it had already met its obligation to disclose its conflict of interests and had never hidden its commercial interest in Innowell. The health department also confirmed “the declaration was assessed and managed in accordance with the commonwealth government procurement rules and guidelines”.
“We make all appropriate disclosures of our involvement and shareholdings in proposals relating to digital mental health,” a PwC spokesperson told Guardian Australia.
“Our involvement with Innowell is about creating a shared value investment to support thousands of individuals across workplaces and clinical care to improve mental health.”
On Wednesday, Guardian Australia reported the $33m grant was awarded without a competitive process and just months after Innowell was registered. PwC was one of the major shareholders and Innowell’s co-founder was PwC partner Kristin Stubbins – who went on to become the firm’s acting chief executive. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Stubbins.
A procurement document, published on the government website Austender, indicates PwC was paid $999,900 for the report. The reason listed for outsourcing the work was a “need for independent research or assessment”.
Steve Kisely, a professor of psychiatry with the University of Queensland’s school of clinical medicine, said he had “concerns about the reliance on companies such as PwC for advice on health policy”.
He said although the PwC digital mental health report to the government was “described as a scoping review, it would not be regarded as such in academic circles as there appears to be a heavy reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources and a lack of critical appraisal of the quality of evidence”.
Michael Tull, the assistant national secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union, which represents the bulk of public servants, said the contract was an example of a government needlessly outsourcing to for-profit companies.
“There’s no special sauce here – it’s a report based on a desktop scan and consultation process with the department and stakeholders. This is work that the public service can and should have done,” Tull said.
“None of these cases are a one-off; they are part of a deeply ingrained culture that has very real consequences, for not only the capacity and capability of the Australian public service but for government transparency and accountability – and the budget.”
Emeritus Prof James Guthrie, a professor of accounting at Macquarie Business School who has contributed to multiple inquiries into the big four consultancy firms, said there was clearly a conflict of interest that needed to be managed.
“Big consultancies often work on ‘both sides of the street’ – advising, for example, both the leading fossil fuel polluters and government mandates to reduce national emissions or being involved in writing federal tax legislation at the same time as advising clients on how to sidestep it,” Guthrie said.
“In this case, we have PwC contracts with the health department and its part-ownership of the firm Innowell using public sector money to develop a commercial product.”
PwC said it stood by the Innowell research referenced in the report. “These trials were delivered and completed successfully, and showed an overwhelming support for integrating digital health solutions into mental health service settings,” the firm said.
