For a firm that advises others on managing reputation risks, taking over a week to respond publicly while the story gained momentum feels remarkably tone-deaf. Even with the initially slow news uptake, crisis communications 101 tells us that silence creates a vacuum that others will fill, usually not in your favour.

As I wrote last week, this scandal managed to hit Australia’s three biggest nerve points simultaneously: taxpayer dollars, AI distrust, and our cultural hatred of bludgers. The $440,000 price tag for what appears to be unchecked AI-generated content validated every fear Australians have about both artificial intelligence and expensive consultants taking taxpayers for a ride.

RELATED: Deloitte’s $440,000 AI scandal hits Australia’s three biggest nerve points

The partial refund somehow made everything worse, creating the impression of corporate damage control rather than genuine accountability. When organisations invest in external consultants, they’re making a deliberate decision to supplement their skills base with specialist advice and expertise. That investment only makes sense if they’re getting a quality product that represents genuine expertise, not sophisticated copy-and-paste work.

The no holds language “dodgy” “very poor” “appalling” “unacceptable” used by government officials during Senate estimates hearings last week shows just how seriously this has damaged relationships. When bureaucrats and ministers are publicly criticising a major contractor while refusing to rule out future work, you know the........

© Mumbrella