KPMG axes hundreds of jobs in Australia as it is suspended from applying for government contracts
KPMG Australia will cut around 5% of its workforce, equating to roughly 360 employees and 27 partners, after being suspended from bidding for federal government contracts. The move follows an audit leak scandal in which executives were found to have misused confidential board papers to win audit work and mistreated a whistleblower, a matter now referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The firm's new chief executive, John Sams, warned that difficult market conditions are likely to persist into the 2027 financial year.
KPMG's annual revenue for fiscal 2026 fell one per cent to $2.5 billion, with its consulting arm down 16.9 per cent amid softer demand and reduced government use of consultants, though audit and assurance revenue rose 11 per cent and tax and legal revenue rose 10.9 per cent. Average equity partner remuneration dropped 13 per cent on the previous year. The firm remains barred from federal contracts until at least the end of September, pending a government review, while several state governments have also frozen dealings with it; KPMG currently holds 297 active federal contracts worth $653 million.
- KPMG Australia cuts 5% of staff, about 360 jobs and 27 partners
- Firm suspended from federal contracts amid audit leak scandal
- Annual revenue fell 1% to $2.5 billion, outlook remains difficult
New here? Start with this
KPMG is one of the "Big Four" professional services firms, providing auditing, tax and consulting work to companies and government bodies in Australia. Government contracts have historically been a significant source of revenue for firms like KPMG, so being barred from bidding for federal work is a serious blow to its business.
The suspension stems from a scandal in which KPMG executives were found to have improperly used confidential board documents to secure audit contracts, and to have mistreated a staff member who raised concerns about the conduct. That matter has now been passed to Australia's National Anti-Corruption Commission, an independent body that investigates corrupt conduct involving public officials and organisations dealing with government. Several state governments, as well as the federal government, have since paused their dealings with the firm.
The case matters because it raises questions about oversight and conduct at one of the country's largest professional services firms, and about how governments manage relationships with contractors accused of wrongdoing. It also comes as KPMG and similar firms face broader pressure from weaker demand for consulting work, making the loss of government business particularly costly.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the suspension argue that a firm entrusted with sensitive government material and public money must be held to the highest standard, and that swift, firm action sends an unambiguous message that misusing confidential board papers and mistreating a whistleblower will carry real consequences. They see the referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the freezing of contracts as proportionate accountability rather than overreach, arguing that only serious sanctions deter repeat misconduct at large professional services firms and protect taxpayers' interests and trust in public procurement.
The case against
Others, while not condoning the underlying misconduct, argue that a blanket suspension collectively punishes hundreds of employees and partners who had no part in the wrongdoing, with job losses falling on staff in audit, tax and consulting divisions unconnected to the scandal. They contend that responsibility should be pinned on the specific executives involved rather than the firm as a whole, and worry that broad, prolonged bans disrupt continuity of government services, reduce competition among contractors, and impose economic harm disproportionate to the offence.