PwC should just be done with it – and change their acronym to ‘PC’. Their ‘report’ into the cost of giving us a democratic voice in deciding the future of society’s fundamental institution has all the unfortunate characteristics of an exercise designed to support a pre-determined outcome. The unbelievable, cobbled together ‘guesstimate’ of a total cost of $500m+ had as over half of this fantasy figure a component of $281m. The ‘exactitude’ of this $281m for the ‘lost opportunity cost’ of voting sets off immediate alarm bells. Not $250m or even $280m. No, $281m to be precise is the cost attributed to citizens voting on a plebiscite, instead of watching the cricket, having a coffee, or taking the dog for a walk.

And for good measure a generous sum of $20m was thrown in for the mental anguish for one small part of the debate! What about the foregone joy and mental benefit of the 2/3rds of the population being denied their voice who actually want a plebiscite? PwC failed to factor in these benefits which I’m sure they could convert into dollars if they weren’t so blinded by their ‘diversity agenda’ of liberated citizens enjoying the benefit of voting in freedom, peace and security in a secret ballot. People have died defending, or fighting for, this too rare but wonderful attribute of our society. Just imagine if PwC tried arguing this to the Swiss where they have plebiscites a plenty as part of their celebrated participatory democracy.

And what about the beneficial stimulus of the sausage sizzles and cake stalls at polling booths? PwC presumably didn’t tell their clients the ‘opportunity cost’ foregone by engaging the proceeds of their fees on this tawdry exercise.

Now all this could be dismissed as an amateurish attempt by a group of bean counters trying to delusionally deal themselves into public relevance but for the PwC diversity agenda. It is so ‘diverse’ (it should be called perverse) that one of their high fliers was warned off being on the board of the Australian Christian Lobby because of its views. PwC celebrates ‘diversity’ just as long as it does not divert from their predetermined views.

So PC are PwC that they are blinded to their own brazen hypocrisy and double standards. As a client I would be concerned as to the professionalism of the firm and appropriation of my fee for such a task. PwC’s partisanship in a public controversy is singularly unwise. Destroying their professional reputation in the process suggests the interests of PC was put before the interests of PwC and its clients.