4 ms·

They are doing both, the current left leaning government is examining both the firms, and their utilisation by the government (in practice, the previous conserv

They are doing both, the current left leaning government is examining both the firms, and their utilisation by the government (in practice, the previous conservative government) . For example, see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-06/public-service-audit-reveals-21-billion-consultant-bill/102312730 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-06/public-service-audit-...

Grimburger 3y ago
It's questionable whether bringing the cost in-house will be cheaper. Australian public servants come with a very large price tag that not even our sovereign wealth fund can handle. Like a good CEO for the big 4 consulting firms that no one else can compete with he wants all the good PR he can get right now, but the question still remains whether paying this man egregious amounts of money is more expensive than paying some boffins in Canberra to do the same job.
- ggm 3y ago
  No way will this be as expensive in house.
  - re-thc 3y ago
    > No way will this be as expensive in house. Hard to tell. Relatively easy to get rid of consultants and contractors. A lot harder to get rid of permanent staff even if they don't perform well. This means you may need 2-3x the headcount in comparison. You save some. You lose some.
    - batiudrami 3y ago
      The government mostly hires staff on 3 year contracts anyway. Not much different to a 2 year consultancy contract, except the hourly rate is 3x as much.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      I got friends in KPMG and they bill on the order of 900/hr per team. I have little doubt the consultants work harder -- they bloody well better -- but if that's 2x or 3x the regular hires is absolutely up for debate. I'd argue probably not. And it leaves out the main point: most of these consultants are blame shields for officials -- "we moved to technology X because Bain & Deloitte told us to". But when you look at the numbers, the spreasheets don't add up, and it's clear that a VP decided this was the course and needed ammo to back it up.
  - Turskarama 3y ago
    You really can't assume that. The whole idea that contractors are somehow cheaper has been put to the test a lot of times and often comes up bullshit. What you CAN do is hide the spending under separate line items so it looks cheaper, don't mind that all these government projects got more expensive by an amount 20% higher than we saved on the public service. EDIT: I think I maybe interpreted your comment as the opposite of what you meant.
- bananapub 3y ago
  > not even our sovereign wealth fund can handle. lol, please tell me you're not talking about the "Future Fund". > the question still remains whether paying this man egregious amounts of money is more expensive than paying some boffins in Canberra to do the same job. this is an extremely bizarre take, given the Big 4 have been fleecing the government for a very long time, partly due to no interest in stopping them.
  - Grimburger 3y ago
    > lol, please tell me you're not talking about the "Future Fund". What other sovereign wealth fund is there? It's not even capable of meeting future public servant pensions, this is unequivocal and openly talked about in the 2023 budget. The Future Fund is $70B short to simply break even on it's liabilities. > given the Big 4 have been fleecing the government for a very long time, partly due to no interest in stopping them Again, you are making the claim that the public service can do it cheaper? Do you have any evidence to back that up? I don't disagree that the Big 4 consulting firms are making out like bandits with taxpayers money but it's fair to ask whether the public service can do it for cheaper. Simply assuming that is the case comes across as very ideological rather than an evidence based opinion. Public servants have much higher wages and super costs than the hordes of young employees at consultancies, it doubtful they can produce more per hour to make up for the difference.

Grimburger 3y ago

It's questionable whether bringing the cost in-house will be cheaper. Australian public servants come with a very large price tag that not even our sovereign wealth fund can handle. Like a good CEO for the big 4 consulting firms that no one else can compete with he wants all the good PR he can get right now, but the question still remains whether paying this man egregious amounts of money is more expensive than paying some boffins in Canberra to do the same job.

ggm 3y ago
No way will this be as expensive in house.
- re-thc 3y ago
  > No way will this be as expensive in house. Hard to tell. Relatively easy to get rid of consultants and contractors. A lot harder to get rid of permanent staff even if they don't perform well. This means you may need 2-3x the headcount in comparison. You save some. You lose some.
  - batiudrami 3y ago
    The government mostly hires staff on 3 year contracts anyway. Not much different to a 2 year consultancy contract, except the hourly rate is 3x as much.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    I got friends in KPMG and they bill on the order of 900/hr per team. I have little doubt the consultants work harder -- they bloody well better -- but if that's 2x or 3x the regular hires is absolutely up for debate. I'd argue probably not. And it leaves out the main point: most of these consultants are blame shields for officials -- "we moved to technology X because Bain & Deloitte told us to". But when you look at the numbers, the spreasheets don't add up, and it's clear that a VP decided this was the course and needed ammo to back it up.
- Turskarama 3y ago
  You really can't assume that. The whole idea that contractors are somehow cheaper has been put to the test a lot of times and often comes up bullshit. What you CAN do is hide the spending under separate line items so it looks cheaper, don't mind that all these government projects got more expensive by an amount 20% higher than we saved on the public service. EDIT: I think I maybe interpreted your comment as the opposite of what you meant.
bananapub 3y ago
> not even our sovereign wealth fund can handle. lol, please tell me you're not talking about the "Future Fund". > the question still remains whether paying this man egregious amounts of money is more expensive than paying some boffins in Canberra to do the same job. this is an extremely bizarre take, given the Big 4 have been fleecing the government for a very long time, partly due to no interest in stopping them.
- Grimburger 3y ago
  > lol, please tell me you're not talking about the "Future Fund". What other sovereign wealth fund is there? It's not even capable of meeting future public servant pensions, this is unequivocal and openly talked about in the 2023 budget. The Future Fund is $70B short to simply break even on it's liabilities. > given the Big 4 have been fleecing the government for a very long time, partly due to no interest in stopping them Again, you are making the claim that the public service can do it cheaper? Do you have any evidence to back that up? I don't disagree that the Big 4 consulting firms are making out like bandits with taxpayers money but it's fair to ask whether the public service can do it for cheaper. Simply assuming that is the case comes across as very ideological rather than an evidence based opinion. Public servants have much higher wages and super costs than the hordes of young employees at consultancies, it doubtful they can produce more per hour to make up for the difference.