Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, , 5:47:14 to 6:30:12
Scrutiny of government consulting expenditure, the implementation of procurement reforms, and the management of external labor contracts.
Topics: Procurement, Government spending, Integrity
Speakers: Hon Katy Gallagher, Barbara Pocock, James Paterson, Unknown Speaker, Speaker 28, Karen Grogan, Matt Yannopoulos PSM
>> Thank you, chair. Um I'm got some questions in relation to the government response on consulting uh and the various scandals that we've witnessed. Minister, um when I look to the Finance and Public Administration Committee's report, uh to begin with, I'm deeply disappointed, incredibly disappointed with the response. Like many others who have watched this scandal unfold over the last couple of years, this was a report that proposed really very modest, very uncontroversial reforms to procurement and it was agreed by the parliament across the parliament, Liberal Labor and the Greens. But your government couldn't even fully agree to these. For example, recommendation seven on developing a central conflict of interest register. Now, this was a proposal which arose from the fact that something could go very badly wrong in one area of the public sector and not be known to other people contracting to the same body. Even though finance had previously admitted to conducting a quote review of confidentiality and conflict of interest arrangements, you've now concluded that existing mechanisms are satisfactory. Why have you done this? Why have you settled for a solution which is not a solution to the egregious and multiple evidence around conflicts of interest across the
Well, I think we have done a lot in terms of uh strengthening the arrangements around the use of consultants contractors um across the APS uh and you know the government has responded to the report as you outline and I think that reflects that that uh response reflects all of the work uh that has been done in this space to um you know tighten arrangements out of the use of consultants and contractors across the APS. Yes, I don't think it's probably the end of it. I think there's probably more that we will uh have to do and stay on this uh case. Um but you know, I I accept that it didn't go as far as you wanted, but I think a lot has been done across government uh to to tighten arrangements from a whole of government point of view. I would say um that finance I mean we have some central responsibilities um here uh but you know there has to be individual agency responsibility too for how they use consultants and contractors
>> but you have a a really central role here in setting the rules for good practice. >> Yeah. The government response also refused to adopt recommendation five that the supplier code of conduct should be amended to include a requirement for service providers to to quote act in the public interest amongst a few other small but very sensible changes. Do you think your response I I think which is so woeful is encouraging to Australians who want to see really significant systemic reform after the PWC a tax le
Uh well if I look at um yes I agree that we have a responsibility um we have an opportunity as the whole of government um you know custodian essentially of the rules around use of consultants and contractors. uh and I think you know the change a lot of change has happened uh to arrangements around um you know with the supplier code of conduct um with some of the monitoring that goes on uh with the changes to the procurement rules that finance has been leading on um you know we we keep this under a watching brief about other things I mean there was some recommendations in that report that we didn't agree to like I think there was one that the parliament I'm trying to recall what it was now, but it was essentially one that I don't think could have worked that the parliament essentially had a would have a role over um you know some consultancy or contracting arrangements which ministers do not have respons you know it's very clear under our arrangements that um engagement with um yeah that enga yeah recommendation 11 recommends that the parliament legislate to establish a joint standing committee to review and approve consultancy and service contracts.
>> exactly as the public works committee does on some of the contracts that we're talking about in the consulting area are huge. They are huge and they do deserve oversight and there was agreement that there doesn't
>> I don't I accept I'm just saying I don't think that is a sensible recommendation and you know procurement occurs across government without politicians um kind of oversight essentially um or view on individual contracts and arrangements and I think that is something important to maintain but I don't accept that you know we haven't done enough I think there's a lot that we have done and I I as I said we keep it under review to uh you know to [clears throat] look and make sure that um you know arrangements are as strong as they could be.
>> Minister I I want to go to the aggregate spend and then I want to go to a couple of detailed examples. You went to the 2022 and 25 elections promising to cut spending on consulting contracts. In the last election you boasted savings of 6.4 billion now updated to 6.8 8 billion on external labor as a whole. Why then does the government's own O tender data show the total consulting spending in 2425 was 843 million and according to the same OS tender dashboard so your data on both occasions the last year of spending on consultants in the addicted Morrison government totally agree they were over the top on their spending on consultants they spent a mere 87 million uh on contracts so you are spending more than that last drunken year of splurging on consultants that the Morrison government indulged in. So your government spent 35.5 million more in 2425 than Morrison did in 2122 despite the rhetoric about reducing reliance on consultants. Despite all the evidence that we've seen in hearing after hearing, 22 days of hearing in the Senate, the behavior of consultants so well demonstrated and yet
>> I mean I think and this is something we've always had um some issues with is how Oz tender doesn't give you a yearon-year kind of like for like uh Sometimes there are large contracts, multi-year contracts that go out over a longer period of time. But on the broader question, we have um we have taken those savings. We've got more of those savings um
>> not in consulting.
>> Well, we have the volume of consultancy contracts as a share of all contracts has reduced from over 4% in 2122 to under 4% in 2425. and the value as a share of all contracts has also reduced. Um there has been a significant decrease in the value and number of contracts awarded to a to the big consulting firms.
>> That's just a shift within who's getting them. That's not a reduction.
>> Look, we're not saying that you don't have to use consultants.
>> No, but you don't use more of them.
>> Well, I think there was criticism including from yourself or certainly your political party about the use of the big four. We have seen a big reduction in that. We've seen a big reduction in the value of all contracts awarded to the largest nine consulting firms. Uh and so but and as a value as a share of all contracts, we have seen that decline. But that is not to say that we won't be needing consultants or that the business of government uh doesn't need to rely on external labor from time to time. It does. But we have taken those savings. Um, we've put more of those savings into myo and we expect um we expect agencies uh to be reducing their reliance on external labor. we have provided them with ASL. So we expect to be seeing that and yes we want to see more of it and the audit and employment in my view didn't show enough progress in that regard and we've been clear with agencies about that including for a more centralized role for finance to look at consultancy contracts over the $2 million threshold >> uh which hasn't been done before which again is in response to some of the work you've done on that committee but also um some of the discussions I've had with finance
>> but the proof is in the pudding and if you look at the last six months minister The value of contracts is already at 403 million for 2025 2016 and we're only halfway through the financial year which means your government is on track to spend the same amount as last year which is more than the Morrison government did. So how do you much do you estimate the government will spend on consulting contracts by the end of 2526 because it's certainly looking to be larger than
I'm not sure if we have that number. Sen Senator Poker,
>> can you take that on notice because I think we we need to have a look at that. Thank you. >> What does a savings figure
>> if you're changing?
>> No, I'm continuing.
>> Continuing. Yep. You've got a couple of
>> Thank you. What does a savings figure of 6.8 billion on external labor even mean if you're spending more on consultants and not less? We've got unfolding disasters that Australians are watching. We saw that massive spend misspend in the uh Bureau of Meteorology. We've seen a deote scandal yet again misleading uh about their practice around the use of AI in Diwa. We see I would like to get to it the enta a very big spend underway PWC deote and in the health department we're seeing very big projects land and expand massive expansion of of spending. What does your promise of reducing the spending here actually mean when we see the direction is the other way it's growing?
>> Well, we have taken that money. So like that that has been removed from agency's budgets. Um so that decision has been taken. uh we have made it clear to them we where we think the opportunity to find those savings are from you know from areas uh that they are responsible for but but accountable entities are responsible for the you know allocation of their own budget. Um I think you know there are you know part of the reason why finance will have an oversight role on those contract large consultancy contracts is to get a better understanding whole of governmentwise uh about what's going on there. I do think there's an issue with extensions uh and that's something that we've talked about with finance where people land a or a organization lands a contract and then 3 months in wa what a surprise it's worth a lot more and the people who originally intended for that don't get another opportunity to bid because it's just an extension of a contract I think that is a problem I'm not sure the solution for that just now but it is something that we've been talking about across finance and I think It is an area where certainly trust from other um providers you know they they query that as well as people like you as well as you know observers of the system. Uh I think that is some uh something that we need to look further at and as I said we keep this under a watching brief. We're a big purchaser of um consultants. Uh I think for the large part you've cited a few examples there. There's obviously thousands of arrangements that are entered into across the APS. I think for the large part the Commonwealth gets good value for money, but yes, there are examples where I scratch my head too and wonder what's going on there.
>> I don't think there has been a more sort of explicit and painful lesson around the globe on things like land and expand about lowballing an entry price and then ratcheting up in the millions. uh with
>> well we have no evidence. Can I just be clear? I I don't have any evidence that that's happening. I am concerned about
the happened. You don't think that happened in the Bureau of Meteorology Minister when it took over $74 million to build a website with an initial bid
>> I mean it's hard to get into individual contracts, but I understand it wasn't just a website. There was other things that were
>> sure
>> were um involved in that in that contract. Um, and so I don't want to I don't want to pretend that I think there's this widescale low lowballing then people are going out and trying to ramp things up um, you know, through an extension or and an amendment to an existing contract. I don't have proof of that and if you have proof of that, it should go somewhere else for investigation. Like seriously. But I do think when I see extensions and amendments, there are enough of them for me to wonder why the original scope was not well understood at the beginning. And I think that's the thing where we can work on across government is to make sure that when things are going out for a job that it's scoped properly and we're not in the situation where 6 months in, it's a different kind of job that's being requested. and people who originally wanted to tender for that job are locked out. I think that you know I have a lot of meetings with businesses and people who want to work with government who who raise that as an
just shaking my head in disbelief actually, Minister, because we have a lot of evidence of incredibly poor value
>> then it should be investigated because that that's corrupt and they're on the in my view if that that could be corruption and it should be investigated.
>> I'll just take you to one contract >> Okay. I've got plenty more after this, but I'll just take you to one it and and you undertook your government undertook to give us more transparency about what these contracts are actually for. So the average person, they want to find out what they're paying $9 million for, can actually have a look. Well, here's a classic. Uh it's it's a contract to Deote. Uh it's had 10 amendments. Uh it's uh we don't know what it's for. It uses the category language of property management services. 10 amendments. It's three times the $3 million originally budgeted for. We have of course a low level of trust in relation to the use of AI by deote but here we go uh on your website without proper information about
>> this tender >> or transparency
>> it's a it's public document which that's the information available on this and I'm just using this as an example this
is >> just you said on my website which it's not on my website it's website I beg you
pardon yes on the public website I mean this is the information the public had about they see something go from 3 million a lot of money but tiny in the consulting world in the public sector jumps to 9 9 million 10 times it changes of course the original contractors who were competitive for this have no chance of getting it that work and we have no information about what it's for so I think you need a healthy do dose of of
good >> I agree with you on that that's what I said I I mean I originally said I an area that I am I think we need to do more on is these extensions that lock people out from the original bid. I've already said that
>> and we don't get enough information transparency about what's going on in these contracts. That's my
>> whose department is Can I ask whose department that is with?
>> Department of Finance.
>> Oh, it's a contract with Department of
>> I think so.
>> Okay. Well, we should be able to provide you with some information about that
>> CN 3601806. Anyway, one of many. Thank you, chair. I'll come back. Thank you. Um, Senator
>> Thank you, Chair. Um, Minister, you remember I exchanged the last estimates about this letter seeking and correct my characterization if wrong agencies and departments to identify the lowest 5% value activities for potential reprioritization.
>> I remember the discussion. Yep. >> Great.
>> Um, that was obviously a process in the leadup to my Epho. Has that process now concluded or is it an ongoing input into the budget in May?
>> Uh it was a process for the budget. So yes, it's got
>> so it wasn't for my
>> um I think the letter was sent at the end of September. So it' be very late in the myo process. It was for budget.
>> Okay. So none of the uh 5% lowest value activities for rep prioritization were realized in my EO.
>> It's a bud. It was for budget 26 27 budget.
>> Okay. Um, so we've heard evidence it was sent by the acting prime minister. I asked PNC yesterday what their role was in drafting the letter and they said they would come back to me. What was finance's role in developing the letter?
>> Um, I don't know.
>> I think it happened before I arrived. >> Yeah. >> Are you able to help? [clears throat]
>> We consulted.
>> Okay. Uh Paul Fitzner, first assistant secretary budget group. Um the letter was read primarily by the department of prime minister and cabinet.
>> Thank you. Um that's helpful but still doesn't answer my question. What was finances input into the letter
>> into the letter itself? I'd have to take on notice if we were involved in that
>> Well, presumably the 5% figure came from somewhere. Did it come from finance? Did it come from PMC? Did it come from Treasury?
>> It's a decision of government. So it's not something that finance would just decide on their own. So it's a it was a decision of government that uh PM and C reflected in their advice out um in that it is um you know I think I went through this last time cuz I know you are really interested in the letter. So interested >> I know and I'm at risk of channeling Matias here again [laughter] Senator Corman where I sat exactly where you did but uh correspondence around budgets are not uh are usually well are budgeting confidence um and aren't released but if there are I mean I'm not sure what aspect of the letter you've got it's sought 5% repri you know ministers to identify low priority 5% um expenditure within their portfolio uh and um you know for budget consideration there was you know I don't know how to be more helpful than that there was no you know I don't know I would have thought you know that you would have thought it was a good idea actually
>> well I as I said to you when we last talked about this without having seen it it's hard to say and certainly
>> but that's what it was it was 5%
certainly without Having said the outcomes of it, it's very hard to say. So, just be really clear, it was a letter from the acting PM to ministers. It wasn't to agencies or departments to and when you say it's a decision of government to settle on that 5% figure, does that mean ERC directed?
>> Yeah. I mean, you know, I'm not allowed to say what ERC agrees to or considers, but >> obviously, you know, throughout through our decision making Yeah. um decisions around the budget are made through the ERC process.
>> Take that as a yes. Um so have all ministers replied to the letter by now?
>> Uh yes.
>> Okay. And uh so those that feedback about the low value ex activities um has been incorporated into the savings process in the leadup to the budget in
Um it's it's you know well we're working with ministers across their portfolios around savings
>> and so any decisions been taken?
>> Uh well we don't usually sit here and confirm. I mean you'll see the decisions in the budget in May.
>> I thought I would try.
>> Yeah. Nice one.
>> Um were any portfolios or agencies
I don't think so, Senator, but we can take that on notice and see if we can answer it.
>> Uh, [clears throat] yeah, I mean, I don't believe so. Um, but as we said at the last hearing and this hearing, um, you know, it's around what what agency what everyone was asked to identify was their lowest priority 5%. It wasn't >> identify 5% for savings. just to make that clear because I I think if I know where you're going to go around national security agencies um and and that like no agency was exempt >> but it it is not it was never and is not about cutting agency appropriations.
>> Sure. But you still did ask AIO for example to spend time identifying their lowest priority activities, >> their 5% lowest priority activities.
>> Well, the letter went to ministers that asked them to identify savings within their portfolio.
>> Yeah. So, and presumably if no one was exempt then no department or agency.
>> Well, we asked ministers to ident we didn't say like if you know I don't want to get into hypotheticals here. Um but um ministers were given the job to identify low priority programs within their portfolio.
>> Yep. So So agencies were not required to provide any input as part of this process. AO wasn't didn't need to spend time providing the Minister for Home Affairs their 5% lowest value
Well, that's for the Minister for Home Affairs. He w he was in that instance required to find to to essentially identify 5% of his lowest priority programs.
>> So, what about the AFP?
>> Well, the I mean again, we didn't go and say you must find 5% from here, here, and here. We said to ministers, the exercise we're going through is a 5% lowest priority programs across your portfolio.
>> Right. Um but if you didn't tell ministers that they didn't need to ask certain agencies, you didn't give them permission not to ask certain agencies. Presumably, they have had to ask all their departments and agencies to identify this. Minister can't you know personally go and work out whether AIO spending is you know all efficient or
>> Well, ministers led that work.
Yep, I'm sure they did. But are you saying that AIO and the AFP were not
>> Well, they weren't written to the letters went to ministers to find savings across their portfolio or no, sorry, not to find savings to identify 5% of the lowest priority programs um and provide some advice back.
I understand that the Australian Federal Police Association wrote to you uh last year. When did you receive that correspondence?
>> I'd have to check. I do recall getting they I've I received uh correspondence from them from time to time and I do recall, but I'm not sure what date it was received. Probably close to whenever they sent it if you have a copy there.
>> Uh, and did you uh read it personally?
>> Yes, I did read I recall the letter.
do you know was it immediately brought to your attention by your office or department?
>> I just have a Coro folder where correspondence comes in every day. So I think it was just through that process.
>> Okay. Do you know um when when you read
>> It would have been very close to when it was sent. It kind of comes into me immediately.
>> Okay. Um what action did you take in
Um, I would have to check to see if there was, you know, I I read it noted. I think they I I I don't have the letter in front of me, so I can't recall it, but I I thought Yeah, I' I'd prefer to have the letter in front of me before I speculate on um how I responded. I'll see if there was a formal response,
>> Yeah. Yeah. be good to know whether you responded in writing, but also just whether or not any action was taken because they they did raise specific concerns about funding of the counterterrorism capability.
>> Well, yeah, and I think part of I mean, I do know from the work we've been doing that there's 710 more ASL at AFP since um 2022. So I I probably assured them that um that you know this is an area that we have provided significant additional resources because of the nature of the work and the complexity of the work and the increased amount of workload including in those areas that you
>> If you did respond in writing can you provide that I'm just checking. Yeah. >> Yeah. And if you could provide it if you have it that would be helpful. H it didn't warrant an immediate response that the counterterrorism function of the AFP was suffering under what the AFP association says are chronic and worsening shortages of officers.
>> Well, as I said, we've provided over 700 additional staff to the AFP since 2022. I might I mean we can have an argument about this but we have funded AFP the intelligence agencies defense like in terms of national security and finding room in the budget for additional resources um you know the treasurer and I have taken that job very very seriously and have been able to find
>> sure
>> additional resources
>> as you said we can have that argument I'm not proposing that we do that today what I'm just seeking to understand is even if you have increased funding even if there are more ASL that does not necessarily mean that there aren't shortages in the counterterrorism function because it is not just a function of their funding it's also a function of the threat environment
>> which is why we've provided additional resources to the AFP like over since we came to to government we have resourced >> with significant investments um you know but you know I am not the minister responsible for the AFP my job is to make sure we're finding the room in the budget for additional resources where we can find them and I've done that. Um, and so, you know, I um, uh, you know, I'm just checking whether I I responded. We received the letter on the 26th of November.
>> Okay. Why do you think the AFP association believes there is a chronic shortage of counterterrorism officers if it is true, as you say, that uh, there's
mean with all due respect, I mean I get quite a lot of correspondence from unions about um additional resources. um you know and areas where they think I I think across the board I would the my the correspondence I would get from unions would be routinely you need to increase the amount of staff in this workplace. like that is my very honest >> evidence to you whether it be in services Australia, the AFP, >> uh you know I any agency um
>> sure I would I don't doubt that at all. I'm sure that's absolutely true. Um but this is a pretty specific area and it's not just any other public service. It's a counterterrorism function to protect Australians from terrorist attacks. Um it seems to me like if in the opinion of the AFP association there's a chronic shortage of counterterrorism officers that is something that warrants an immediate and serious response and I
have no doubt that the minister responsible for the AFP would have been engaging on that. Um my job in putting the budgets together and finding additional money to invest in organizations like the AFP of which we are incredibly supportive um is one that I take seriously and I think if you reflect on the budget papers you'll see um that commitment uh delivered in outcomes.
>> Okay. Uh chair I have another topic to move on but I'm conscious you may want to move the call.
>> Thank you very much Senator Paterson. We will go to Senator PCO. >> Thank you. Um, I've just been reflecting on your answers, uh, Minister, >> Mhm. to my last set of questions. I've got to say I just feel incredibly disappointed that we've spent three years, not just me, members of your own party, uh members uh of the coalition collected so much evidence about ethical failure and problems in the uh procurement regime in our consulting firm and it's like it never happened. is I I'm gobsmacked actually. I just want to take you to I mean one of the one of the really important things you wanted to do your government has wanted to do is to ensure that core functions uh of public service are carried out within the public sector and not contracted out for example and you've also talked about the transfer of knowledge when we do something with a contractor or a consultant really important that we build the public sector by learning from it that we ensure ethical practice that we don't see aggressive rapacious uh power mapping which we have seen KPMG denied they did it and then we could show colorcoded maps of entire departments where staff were graded according to their farm ability for future contracts and uh KPMG lied that they did that um and then we we've seen a very big firm like asenture which is the largest uh con consultant not one of the big four but it has made the money in the last 13 years out of public sector contracting than anyone else. I think over $6 billion. I'm going on a figure that was in the Saturday paper last week. So, massive massive amounts of contracting uh consulting and farming out of core work which has been a priority for you to bring back in. If I look at a recent report about what's going on and I want to take your attention to it in the health sector, I am really concerned that we are still seeing major pieces of work consulted out uh lent going out to PWC, to KPMG and to Essentia of core tasks within the public service. um in particular the system that um uh the integrated assessment tool that decides whether you're and what kind of a support you're going to get as an aged person and many people in this room will have navigated it. I have certainly more than once for my parents. Um it's a system that's a vital gateway to a critical service often at an emergency moment in life. And we look at who's doing the work of this. It's PWC and KPMG who are who are not only designing it, they're developing it and they evaluate it. Like this is just so wrong on so many fronts and this is now Senator. >> Do you have a question? >> I have a question which is are you not disappointed that major projects in very big departments that are affecting critical life events and certainly uh should be core functions of the public sector are being farmed out for massive amounts of money. 600 million for example the essential contract in the health department it's huge started off at 300 suddenly 600
>> the new age care system
>> um >> are you not worried about this
>> I mean I think if the one that you're referring to you should direct it to health um
>> this is about the parameters I
>> I understand I understand and I mean I've got um my own well I have had a look at that accenture um arrangements with health but it's more appropriate that health answer that um answer questions around that look I think there are f as I said we keep this under watching brief we have sign we've put in a lot of effort across government both by finding savings rebuilding the public service issuing the strategic commissioning framework reporting against it we've got new changes that we're bringing in uh to effect to continue to manage this. I think there's further things we can do as I've alluded to before. I would prefer that um you know programs like the one that you talk about are deliver like they're just you know they win a contract, they deliver that contract uh for the price that was agreed. But at times there are legitimate reasons why that um why there are extensions made or additional payments being made and in th those instances it it should be transparent about why that has happened. Um but yes I think there's further work to do but you know we are I I can't think of a government who has done as much as we have in this space to look at how procurement and outsourcing of government work happens and looking at ways to tighten it and have better transparency and accountability about that.
>> You're you're responding to the the question of expansion of contracts and so on. What about this question though of core work? I mean deciding who should get access to a critical set of payments and support is this is a citizen's access to income support from their government that is not an external
>> well this is about the as I understand it and I'm not like this is why you should ask the questions to health this is about building infrastructure that we don't have as as part of um you know existing capability as far as I recall that contract so we have got the strategic commissioning framework. Uh the reports against that for the first full reporting year were good. Uh but I think uh the ATO and another department did the heavy lifting in that regard. I think 82% of other agencies um well there 82% of the target was reached for other agencies. So there is more work that we can be doing there but that is now reported in annual reports as well about how how agencies are tracking against the targets they set and that is about ensuring that core public service work is core but I'm not sure and again I'm not responsible for that contract the Accenture contract would fit into that the strategic commissioning framework's definition of core public service work cuz I think it from memory it's more about delivering the system that actually delivers the policy program that is core
>> Well, this contract is actually with PWC and KPMG and there is another one a large one with and so that there are certainly issues there about about core definition and and whether it meets that. The other element that I think really troubles me about this particular work is and I met this week for example with DEFAT about the very large amount of contracting they do with very large entities out there internationally and they generally as I understand the briefing do not allow design development and evaluation to sit in the same company for obvious reasons direct conflict of interest you're evaluating your own homework here in this particular example and this is a principle that I think we need to consider for public sector work. You don't design, develop, and evaluate and and in this um description about what's going on inside this work by PWC and KPMG in relation to the IAT is they're doing all of it and it's not right. It it just does not pass a test about separating conflicts of interest. What is your response to that?
>> Well, again, I I mean, it's hard. It's I don't have knowledge of that contract and I'm not responsible for that contract.
>> But the principle of it is there is is I'm asking your opinion about the principle of both you you draw up structure for it you you you develop it and then you evaluate for many millions of dollars all elements of that project with one person one company not one person multiple people within a single
>> Well again I I can't I mean you've got that information in front of you. I don't have that information in front of
>> I'm asking about the principle of it.
>> You know, managing conflicts of interest is an important uh part of government procurement. If there are conflicts of interest, they should be declared and understood as agencies go through procurement processes.
>> So, I've got a different line of to move to. Is that >> Yes. >> Okay. Yep. Uh I want to go to the audit of employment which you uh mentioned minister and I've got questions on this second long- aaited audit. >> There are methodological differences between the audit of 2021-22 the last year of the Morrison government and the 2324 audit of employment. Why was the decision made to change the methodology?
um because there was an acceptance I think that um called outsource service providers I think they're called um outsource service providers would not be ch you know essentially would not be changed so it's it would you know it gives us a better picture of what's going on uh across government and a better baseline to work
>> Isn't it the case that changing the definition in that way uh is just advantageous to uh the story you want of a reduction? I can't see why you would >> I I know you have. That's what you said. But
>> yeah, we have excluded them because like I mean if you're providing garrison services or you know in defense, we're not going to change that. We're not going to employ people [snorts] to do some of that work. So the outsourced service providers um I think from my point of view of which there were about there were you know 28,000 I think um it's a it's a better baseline for us to work on the areas that we think there is room uh you know to monitor and make sure um if there is the opportunity to have people do that work as um public servants those as opposed to contracting out then That's a better essentially you're focusing on the group where we would we could make changes.
>> So if let me ask this then if the same definition had been adopted for 2324 as was used in 2122 how much would have been spent on an external workforce
>> I don't know I don't
>> Would you take that on notice?
>> Yeah I don't know if we have
>> Thank you. I I'm looking for apples and apples here. I'd really like to understand what the real numbers tell us about the shift. The new audit actually shows an increase in the number of consultants. Page five of the previous audit shows there were the equivalent of 954 full-time consultants employed by the public service in 2021-22. However, page five of the new audit shows an equivalent of 1,430 full-time consultants in 2324. How do you explain that very significant discrepancy and
>> through through improvements in data essentially through the improvements in the quality of data? Uh so we know that the first audit underestimated the full-time equivalent numbers of workers engaged by entities for consultancy work and in that audit 41 of the 82 entities that reported on consultants did not report the related number of FTE equivalents. We have fixed that for this audit.
>> So do you think the
>> only 11 of 91 did not report it in the 2324 audit.
>> Sorry, can you say that last number
again? only 11 of 91 entities.
>> Okay. So, you you believe in 2021 a lot of agencies were not reporting.
>> They weren't reporting the full-time the related number of full-time equivalent workers.
>> Okay. Um will you be committing to making this audit of employment with a wholesome analysis that gives us a real picture as an annual exercise into the future? Because if we're going to track this, obviously we need to have the data.
>> Look, we haven't taken that decision. and you know, I I'd wanted to talk to finance about the amount of work that goes into this versus, you know, other the opportunity costs, but also understand whether or not this is something that we think we should do. I don't know that we've done it on a yearly basis anyway. There's only been two in the last >> four years essentially, and it it's it takes a lot of work to get this data.
When do you expect to make that
>> Um, I'd be talking to finance about it probably through the budget process.
>> Okay. Um, can I move then to my last questions on of this group finance?
>> Well, we were rotate. How much have you got?
>> It's quite quick.