Deloitte to refund the Australian government after using AI in $440k report

Perceived leniency and accountability

• Many see the outcome (partial refund) as evidence that large firms can mislead government and taxpayers with minimal consequences, unlike small-time fraudsters who face harsh enforcement.
• Commenters argue this reflects a broader pattern: the bigger and more “respectable” the offender, the more likely the result is a negotiated payback rather than serious sanction.

What consulting firms really do (in practice vs theory)

• Cynical view: consulting is mainly used for “decision laundering” and “accountability sinks” – executives outsource unpopular or risky choices (layoffs, system changes, compliance regimes) so they can say “we followed the consultant’s advice.”
• More charitable view: consultants provide external expertise, cross-industry experience, temporary bandwidth, and a neutral outside perspective, especially for rare or complex tasks (tax credits, new regulations, cloud migrations, AI adoption).

Quality, AI, and value for money

• Several say the AI-generated report is just a visible example of long‑standing low‑value “slop” governments have bought from big firms for years.
• Others argue the core failure is supervision and quality control: the consultancy was supposed to ensure the report could withstand public scrutiny, regardless of whether staff or AI drafted it.
• Some note that if AI is used to cut costs, clients will expect prices to fall too; using AI while charging full human-expert rates is seen as fraudulent or at least deceptive.

Labour model and incentives in big consultancies

• Repeated theme: a small number of highly paid partners oversee layers of underpaid, overworked juniors who do most of the real work, with huge gaps between billing rates and salaries.
• “A-team/B-team” complaints: sales are done by impressive seniors; delivery is often handed to junior or offshore teams, sometimes with heavy reliance on AI tools.
• Many describe these firms as demoralizing, politically driven hierarchies that burn out staff but persist because they remain useful to executives.

Government dependence and structural issues

• Multiple comments criticize the Albanese (Australian) government and others for excessive reliance on big consultancies instead of building in‑house expertise, driven by hiring caps, pay limits, ideology around “outsourcing,” and desire for political cover.
• Some argue this routinely produces worse quality at higher cost, but is sustained by revolving doors and perceived legal/ reputational protection.

Impact on citizens and automated systems

• Context shared: the report related to a welfare‑compliance IT system that had already caused serious harm via incorrect debts and enforcement actions.
• Against that backdrop, using AI‑generated, error‑prone analysis is seen as especially dangerous; commenters warn that AI‑assisted “box ticking” in such domains can become a life‑and‑death problem.