Source: The Conversation – France – By Emmanuel Josserand, Enseignant-chercheur, Pôle Léonard de Vinci

The post-Covid era has been marked by a global crackdown on government spending on consultants. This phenomenon hasn’t only concerned France, where the “McKinsey-gate” episode concerning President Emmanuel Macron’s 2017 campaign for the Élysée led to a Senate inquiry and spending cuts.

Public debates, government inquiries and new laws emerged in many countries, including the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand, Germany and South Africa. Australia has been particularly active and achieved significant savings in consultant and contractor spending. Here’s how it did it.

Nearly €2 billion in savings

To understand why the use of consultants has become highly politicized in Australia, we need to go back at least to the 2018 federal elections. The right-wing coalition government was focusing on cutting public spending by reducing public jobs. The Labour opposition argued that this led to the more costly use of consultants.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

The controversy continued through the 2022 federal elections, when a newly elected Labour government pledged to save 3 billion Australian dollars (around €1.9 billion) on consultants and the use of external labour. This was also pursued at the regional level. For instance, the state of New South Wales announced savings of over 55% in consultants’ fees for the fiscal year 2023-24.

The case of Australia highlights four main reasons for reducing consulting costs and improving governance – reasons that are also found in other countries.

• Expenses exceeding needs

First, a dramatic increase in government spending on consultants attracted attention. In Australia, it almost tripled between 1988-89 and 2016-17 (after adjustment for inflation) and then tripled again to reach 3.2 billion Australian dollars for management advisory services alone in 2022-23. There is a concern that such costs are far more than what might be justified by a temporary rise in workload or the need for very specific technical expertise, even accounting for the exceptional case of Covid.

• Hollowing out of the public service

Second, there is the related question of the hollowing out of the public service. The increase in the use of consultants can trigger a vicious circle in which the government loses its skills, thus becoming even more dependent on consultants. This was the core argument of a recent critique by economists called The Big Con.

• Lack of assessment

Third, there are reasons to doubt the overall efficiency and effectiveness of consultants’ interventions, especially in the absence of appropriate assessment by clients of the outcomes of the services provided. Despite the claims of consultants and their paying clients that consulting adds value, it is often impossible to measure value precisely, and, therefore, identify who deserves credit or blame.

Beyond comparing rates of pay, it is hard to know whether internal options would be more effective than using external consultants. Overall, research provides a very mixed picture, with some work showing external consulting being associated with increased inefficiency.

• Significant conflicts of interest

Finally, the capacity of consultants to provide independent advice has been broadly criticised after a series of scandals. This is partly because of conflicts of interest for consultants working for both public and private sector clients that are also often undeclared.

This concern became especially salient in Australia with the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) tax scandal. The Treasury had hired PwC, one of the “Big 4” consulting firms, to help devise legislation to restrict tax evasion by multinationals. Some PwC partners then shared this information with their private sector clients to help them prepare to avoid the new laws. Such cases are linked to broader concerns about the lack of transparency and professionalism in consulting and the failure of self-regulation, both linked to a reward system in the sector that prioritises generating fee income over ethics and the wider public interest.

Recommendations from the Senate inquiry

With a dependency on consulting that was proportionally greater than any other country’s and the resulting diminishment of its public service, Australia was facing a significant challenge and pressure to cut costs. But because of the diminishment of the public service, these cuts risked leaving it unable to fulfil its missions.

A recent Senate inquiry into the matter provided recommendations on how to improve the contracting process, public reporting on consultant contracts and a new regulatory framework for the consulting industry. It also recommended that any external consulting contract include an approach to transferring knowledge to the Australian public service.

However, these measures wouldn’t have been enough to reconstruct the capacity of the public service to compensate for significant cuts in their consulting and contractor spending. To solve this problem, the Australian government has started a major rebuilding of the public service.

Thousands of reallocated roles

Since 2022, Canberra has reallocated 8,700 roles formerly performed by consultants and external labour hires to public servants across all the major public service agencies. This will be supported by the Australian Public Service Commission’s strategy to develop a flexible workforce that is prepared for the challenges the public service will be facing – notably that of digitalization, an area that has been over-reliant on consultants.

Another interesting initiative in New South Wales is the establishment of a unit that will aim to redirect government agencies toward in-house expertise instead of consultants. Indeed, recourse to internal consulting units is common in the private sector. The government will also undertake long-term capability and skills planning, notably to identify core public service skills and address competency gaps.

Will this bring lasting results?

Australia’s solution is thus a strong commitment to redeveloping the public service with a flexible and planned approach to the management of its human resources. This is a key part of the way forward if cuts to consulting budgets are to be sustained. It is, however, too early to judge if the challenge of redeveloping the public service workforce and making it flexible enough will be met.

We should also keep in mind that this long-term objective is subject to political changes. With the current opposition leader promising a cut of 10,000 civil servants if his coalition is elected later this year, Labour’s plans for the public workforce might be short-lived.

Indeed, in Australia and elsewhere, there is a long history of short-lived and failed government efforts to contain the use of external consulting. This is in part because of a lack of civil service capacity to respond to change, but also because consulting firms are adept at persuading those in power – politicians and senior civil servants – that they can solve their problems (and let them take the credit).

Emmanuel Josserand is affiliated with the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney and the Business Insight Institute, Wiltz, Luxembourg.

Andrew Sturdy et Emmanuel Josserand ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.

– ref. How Australia’s government is spending less on consultants – and trying to rebuild the public service – https://theconversation.com/how-australias-government-is-spending-less-on-consultants-and-trying-to-rebuild-the-public-service-252748