They Gut Democracy, and Call It Progress

They call it progress, but it’s a corporate coup—unelected technocrats now rule behind the curtain, replacing democracy with data, ethics with algorithms, and service with profit.

The video above is from the Adam Stokes’ (Right) YouTube channel. The title of this video is: The Man Who Could Shake Up Australian Politics – Dr. Andy Schmulow Interview (Left). This article is motivated by this shocking presentation. A presentation that depicts, in part, testimony given to both a Parliamentary Joint Committee and Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's inquiry into the "Management and Assurance of Integrity by Consulting Services." (For more information please read the note at the end of this article).

---

Lone Voice in the Fog of Corruption

Andy Schmulow is not your typical law professor. He’s a principled, razor-sharp legal mind with a deep moral compass and the courage to speak truth to power—no matter the cost. A fierce defender of integrity in public life, Schmulow has pulled back the curtain on a sickening alliance between multinational corporations and the Australian government. What he’s revealed isn’t just corruption, it’s the systematic betrayal of the Australian people by a transnational class of tax-evading profiteers, protected by elite law firms, political donations, and a sprawling web of influence that spans continents and institutions.

Systemic Betrayal

In a recent interview, Schmulow laid bare the rot with alarming clarity: multinationals making billions on Australian soil while contributing nothing back; consultants who simultaneously write tax laws and secretly install the back-doors to avoid them; and government departments that funnel millions in public funds to these very firms under the guise of “expert advice.” This isn’t just unfair, it’s a rigged system, engineered by design, where the ultra-rich extract the wealth of a nation while ordinary Australians are left to foot the bill.

A Government Complicit

What’s going on here? How has this breathtaking fraud been allowed to flourish in a supposedly advanced democracy? The uncomfortable truth, as revealed by Dr. Schmulow, is that our government is not a powerless bystander, it is an accomplice. While citizens are strangled by inflation, housing costs, and health system collapse, an elite corporate tier is being shielded and fed by those in power. Politicians from both major parties accept millions in donations from the very firms they’re supposed to hold to account. Reports are commissioned not to uncover truth but to maintain the illusion of legitimacy. Inquiries are launched, televised, and quietly buried. And the public is left stunned, asking how this blatant criminality can persist year after year, without consequence.

Not Incompetence—Orchestration

But this is not just shady business. From all appearances, this is orchestrated fraud. When the same consultants who help write tax law then teach global corporations how to sidestep it, what do you call that, if not sabotage? When corporations gorge themselves on the public infrastructure paid for by taxpayers, our roads, schools, hospitals, courts, and digital networks, but pay no tax in return, what is that if not theft? And when these actions are concealed behind fake law firms and misused legal privilege, enforced through “influence maps” that target public servants for manipulation, we are not merely witnessing corruption. We are staring straight into the eyes of the technocrat class, unelected, unaccountable, and insulated from the consequences of the policies they impose on the rest of us.

Corporate Playbook

Strip away the glossy brochures, the public relations fluff, and the high-minded mission statements, and the truth is brutal: the sole purpose of a multinational corporation is to make money. Full stop. Morality is optional. Conscience is expendable. And the closer a corporation can get to government, the more profitable the game becomes. Influence buys access. Access buys exemptions. Exemptions buy contracts. Contracts buy silence. Cozying up is just part of the strategy. If a little grovelling secures a $100 million government project or an eight-slide PowerPoint payday, then grovel they will. The rewards are astronomical: billions in profits, zero tax obligations, legal impunity, and the power to shape policy from the inside. The goal is domination, and the method is infiltration. They’re not just winning. They’ve taken over the rule-book.

Enter Technocracy

And once the policies are written, the contracts secured, and the scrutiny neutralised, the only logical next step is to seize the system itself. That’s where technocracy takes the baton. Governance no longer belongs to elected officials representing a public interest. It is handed off to unelected “experts”—technocrats—who manage the country like a corporate spreadsheet. In their cold calculus, citizens are redefined as cost centres, risk profiles, and human capital. The story is sold as progress: “Efficiency,” “modernisation,” “fiscal responsibility.” But in reality, it's a corporate coup, not with soldiers or tanks, but with keycards, boardroom deals, and strategic hires. Democracy remains as a brand logo. But the substance—governance, control, power—has been quietly outsourced.

Proof in the Power Brokers

Want proof? Look no further than Schmulow’s blistering testimony. These firms don’t advise governments, they run them. PwC, KPMG, Deloitte, EY, these are the true power brokers. They craft policies on one hand and profit from their circumvention on the other. PwC was paid $1 million in taxpayer funds to deliver an eight-slide PowerPoint to RoboDebt, a morally bankrupt scheme that hunted Centrelink recipients while protecting the real tax cheats in corner offices. When grilled in Parliament, the lies flowed like tap water. Influence maps, fake legal privilege,¹ fabricated reports—KPMG even outsourced research ethics reports to ChatGPT, complete with fictional citations.² And the regulators? Neutered. ASIC is a yapping dog on a short leash.³ The ACCC is comatose.⁴ Parliament itself is bought and sedated.⁵ Labor and Liberal—Schmulow says it plainly—“two cheeks of the same backside.”

Cartel Disguised as Competition

The result? A nation not governed by visionaries or public servants, but by accountants, algorithms, and spreadsheets. Coles and Woolworths, masquerading as competitors,⁶ are owned by the same global finance giants; BlackRock and Vanguard, and operate with surgical precision to dominate food supply chains, set national prices, and squeeze both farmers and families. Their profit margins exceed those of the country's already scandalously profitable banks, while families scramble to make ends meet and small grocers fold under pressure. This is not competition—it is a cartel, protected by regulatory paralysis and political collusion.

Profiting from Public Collapse

Meanwhile, public services crumble. Hospitals are chronically understaffed, not due to lack of funding, but because funds are siphoned into bottomless consulting contracts with firms like PwC, who bill taxpayers for the very crises they help create. Roads fall apart, education budgets shrink, and essential workers face burnout, while PwC claims to be a “vulnerable party” in a misconduct complaint they fought to keep hidden. Vulnerable? A $3 billion corporate entity manipulating governments for profit dares to play the victim. This isn’t just hypocrisy. It’s psychopathic.

Death of Truth

Then there’s the coldest betrayal: truth itself has become a casualty. When consulting firms like KPMG and PwC fabricate reports, abuse legal privilege, and weaponise insider knowledge to design tax evasion systems for billion-dollar clients, it confirms what many suspected: this is technocracy unmasked. These firms aren't offering solutions; they are selling control, wrapping their deceit in jargon, dressing their manipulation in "expertise," and building a labyrinth no ordinary citizen can navigate, let alone challenge.

When Judges Protect Themselves

And what happens when the last line of defence—the judiciary—begins to malfunction? When the very institution sworn to uphold justice instead shields itself from scrutiny? In November 2024, Australians watched as Chief Justice Debra Mortimer dismissed a complaint against Justice Helen Rofe, a ruling that exposed just how deeply technocratic influence has seeped into the foundations of law.

Justice Compromised

Justice Rofe had presided over a high-stakes case involving the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and, more pointedly, the actions of Pfizer. What was not disclosed to the parties, or to the public, was that Rofe had previously acted as legal counsel for Pfizer during her time as a barrister. This fact alone, under any sane standard of judicial ethics, would have warranted full disclosure and likely recusal. But Rofe said nothing. She maintained silence while adjudicating matters that directly intersected with her former client’s interests.

Buried by Procedure

When this glaring conflict of interest was later raised in a formal complaint, Mortimer reframed the issue. Rather than addressing the substantive ethical concern—that a sitting judge may have concealed a prior affiliation with a global pharmaceutical giant at the centre of the dispute, she buried the matter under procedural technicalities. The complaint, she claimed, failed to meet the threshold for “serious consideration,” dismissing the public’s right to question whether justice was truly served. In doing so, Mortimer didn’t just excuse misconduct, she normalised it.

Circling the Wagons

This was no mere bureaucratic oversight. It was a signal: the courts are circling the wagons. The decision reeked of institutional self-protection, a judiciary more concerned with maintaining its internal sanctity than upholding the public’s faith in impartial justice. In the cold language of technocracy, the ethical breach was rationalised as a non-issue. But to everyday Australians, to anyone paying attention, it was a betrayal.

Fortress of Insiders

When judges fail to disclose ties to parties in cases before them, they don’t just risk bias, they commit it. And when a Chief Justice excuses that failure with dismissive detachment, the message is clear: transparency is optional, accountability is inconvenient, and the judiciary is no longer a servant of the people, but a fortress of insiders.

Fall of the Courts

History offers dire warnings for moments like this. In societies where courts prioritise protection of their own over the pursuit of truth, justice quickly degenerates into a performance, a facade to preserve power. And make no mistake: if the judiciary succumbs to technocratic capture, democracy itself will not be far behind.

Progress or Submission?

Technocracy thrives in this confusion. Its champions don’t wear military uniforms or shout in parliaments, they sit quietly in air-conditioned boardrooms, rewriting the rules of society under the banner of "progress." But what they call progress is in fact submission. Submission to opaque systems, engineered compliance, and the calculated erosion of personal and national sovereignty. There is no moral architecture in technocracy, only economic utility. And when democracy becomes an inconvenience to that utility, it is sidelined with surgical precision.

Bloodless Coup

Let there be no illusions: technocracy is not a clever evolution of governance. It is a bloodless, bureaucratic coup. It promises order and delivers obedience. It claims neutrality while serving power. And if left unchecked, it will render the citizen obsolete, reduced to a metric, a burden, a behavioural problem to be managed. As artificial intelligence and automation surge into every corner of economic life, the technocrats no longer even need to pretend to value human contribution. The language of "labour" and "dignity" is being replaced by talk of "efficiency gains" and "productivity metrics", where machines don't need breaks, pensions, or a conscience.

People as Problems

We are not dealing with a broken system. We are confronting a design that now deems entire segments of the population as surplus to requirements. What happens when millions are no longer needed for production, no longer useful to the corporate machine? History warns us that societies which devalue humanity often begin to see it as a problem to solve. Whether through exclusion, digital isolation, or social credit-like control, the dehumanisation has already begun, quietly, methodically, and without debate.

Final Warning

We are staring into the polished face of a new order, deliberately constructed to serve the few, silence the many, and ensure that truth, justice, and accountability remain permanently out of reach.

---

Please note:

Dr. Andy Schmulow has provided evidence in multiple capacities to various Australian parliamentary inquiries, primarily as an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Wollongong and as an expert in financial regulation and corporate governance.

On 8 May 2024, Dr. Schmulow testified before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services during its inquiry into "Ethics and Professional Accountability: Structural Challenges in the Audit, Assurance and Consultancy Industry." In this capacity, he provided insights into the ethical and structural issues within major consulting firms like PwC, KPMG, Deloitte, and EY. His testimony addressed concerns about conflicts of interest, regulatory capture, and the integrity of financial services in Australia.

Dr. Schmulow also made a formal submission on 18 May 2023 to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's inquiry into the "Management and Assurance of Integrity by Consulting Services." In this submission, he analyzed the conduct of consulting firms, particularly PwC, and discussed the implications of their actions on public trust and governance. He emphasized the need for tangible consequences to deter future misconduct and restore public confidence in governmental processes.

In these roles, Dr. Schmulow has consistently acted as an independent academic expert, offering critical analysis and recommendations to enhance transparency, accountability, and ethical standards within Australia's financial and governmental institutions.

For more detailed information, you can refer to the official records of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee.

---

Footnotes:

1. In the context of Dr. Andy Schmulow’s testimony, "fake legal privilege" refers to the deliberate misuse of legal professional privilege by consulting firms like PwC to hide evidence of misconduct. Legal privilege is meant to protect genuine, confidential communications between a client and their lawyer related to legal advice. However, Schmulow revealed that PwC falsely claimed legal privilege over tens of thousands of documents—many of which were not legal in nature, in order to shield their internal communications from scrutiny during investigations into their role in enabling corporate tax evasion. This tactic allowed them to obstruct transparency, evade accountability, and avoid disclosure of damning evidence that would have exposed their dual role in shaping and exploiting Australia’s tax system. In short, it was a weaponised form of deception, using the legal system’s own safeguards to protect profit-driven fraud.

2. In the transcript, Dr. Andy Schmulow exposes that fabricated reports refer to documents produced by consulting firms—particularly KPMG—that are presented as expert or evidence-based, but are in fact misleading or outright false. One glaring example is KPMG's use of ChatGPT to generate a report for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on research ethics, which included fake citations and invented sources. These reports were passed off as authoritative, despite lacking rigorous research or factual grounding. The fabrication wasn’t a mistake, it was a deliberate act of deception, dressed up in the language of expertise to manipulate decision-makers and the public. In doing so, firms like KPMG not only compromised ethical standards but undermined trust in the very institutions they were paid to advise.

3. In the transcript, Dr. Andy Schmulow uses the phrase “ASIC is a yapping dog on a short leash” to illustrate the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) pathetic impotence and captured status as a corporate regulator. Rather than acting as a fearless watchdog protecting the public from financial misconduct, ASIC, in Schmulow’s view, has become a performative entity—making noise but taking no meaningful action. The “short leash” implies that ASIC is controlled by political and corporate interests, constrained from pursuing real accountability against powerful entities like the big banks or the Big Four consulting firms. Despite repeated evidence of corporate fraud and misconduct, ASIC fails to prosecute or intervene effectively, serving instead as a weak façade that gives the illusion of oversight while enabling the continuation of systemic abuse.

4. In the transcript, Dr. Andy Schmulow describes the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) as “comatose” to emphasise its complete failure to act in the face of rampant market manipulation and monopoly behaviour, particularly by dominant players like Coles and Woolworths. Despite having a statutory role to promote competition and protect consumers, the ACCC has not lifted a finger to address the duopoly’s control over food pricing, supply chains, or its devastating impact on smaller retailers and consumers. Calling the ACCC “comatose” suggests it is not just inactive—but unresponsive, lifeless, and fundamentally disconnected from its mission. According to Schmulow, it lacks the legislative powers (such as divestiture authority) and the institutional will to confront monopolistic abuse. In effect, the ACCC has become a hollow institution, allowing corporate giants to operate unchecked while Australians pay the price.

5. In the transcript, Dr. Andy Schmulow states that “Parliament itself is bought and sedated,” to express his grave concern that Australia’s political system no longer serves the public, but the powerful corporate interests that fund it. Both major parties—Labor and Liberal—are portrayed not as adversaries but as co-managers of the same rigged system, each receiving millions in donations from the very corporations and consulting firms they are meant to regulate. When Schmulow bluntly declares they are “two cheeks of the same backside,” he underscores the meaningless distinction between the parties when it comes to protecting the public interest. Whether it's banking regulation, corporate tax avoidance, or supermarket monopolies, both sides maintain the status quo. Parliament, he argues, is not just complicit—it is comfortably subdued, lulled into inaction by the revolving door of money, favours, and career incentives. The result? A legislature that legislates for the powerful, not the people.

6. In the transcript, Dr. Andy Schmulow exposes Coles and Woolworths as "masquerading as competitors" to highlight the illusion of competition between Australia’s two dominant supermarket chains. While they appear to be rivals, both are owned by the same powerful global institutional investors, notably BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, which means their real interests are aligned. Rather than driving prices down through competition, these retail giants operate as a coordinated duopoly, controlling supply chains, pricing, and shelf access with near-monopolistic precision. Their domination enables them to extract record profits, even higher than Australia’s big four banks, while farmers are squeezed, independent grocers are crushed, and consumers face escalating food prices. In Schmulow’s view, the so-called “competition” between Coles and Woolworths is a smokescreen that conceals a highly profitable, shared monopoly.