NEWSREADER: PwC is under fire
for leaking confidential tax secrets NEWSREADER: PwC is under fire from the government to companies...
for leaking confidential tax secrets from the government to companies...
Former PwC chief executive and a senior colleague quit their roles...
There's been an egregious breach of trust with others in the industry...
ANGUS GRIGG: It's one of the biggest scandals
ANGUS GRIGG: to ever hit corporate Australia.
I think the country to ever hit corporate Australia.
I think the country is absolutely filthy with PwC.
I think the country The nation's largest consulting firm
illegally used confidential government information
to help its clients avoid tax.
DEBORAH O'NEILL: And, at this point of time,
who in their right mind would trust the word of PwC?
It's just so shocking to me that anyone would behave like this.
But this scandal is much bigger than just one firm.
CHRIS WALLACE: It kind of happened in plain sight.
CHRIS WALLACE: To a large extent
Australia's public service To a large extent
Australia's public service was privatised before our very eyes.
I mean, everyone has now kind of gone, Australia's public service was privatised before our very eyes.
I mean, everyone has now kind of gone,
"Oh, my God, what just happened?"
On this episode of Four Corners
we go beyond PwC,
talking to whistleblowers we go beyond PwC,
talking to whistleblowers about a toxic industry
that's ripping off taxpayers and trampling our democracy.
WHISTLEBLOWER: They're absolutely prepared to break the rules,
WHISTLEBLOWER: They're absolutely to be dishonest.
And, ultimately, it's taxpayers who are paying for this.
What I don't hear is anybody calling it for what it is -
What I don't hear is anybody an abuse of privilege and power.
They are the corporate titans
with salaries and glimmering towers to match.
Once dowdy accountants,
the so-called 'Big Four' are today household names...
..PwC, KPMG, EY and Deloitte.
In recent years
they've embraced the far more In recent years
they've embraced the far more lucrative and secretive world
they've embraced the far more of management consulting.
DEBORAH O'NEILL: There's no transparency.
There is no register of who they're working for anywhere. DEBORAH O'NEILL: There's no transparency.
There is no register of who they're working for anywhere.
There is no public access to that information.
These are closed worlds
which have been operating in their own little empires.
Their reach extends from the boardroom
Their reach to the very heart of government.
Australia's spending on consultants is among the highest in the world.
Government is the number-one customer in the world.
The consultants are pretty much feasting on public service,
The consultants are pretty much service delivery, policy advice.
It's absolutely pervasive.
Consultants are everywhere.
While these firms might have slick offices
with sweeping views of Sydney Harbour,
with sweeping views their biggest client is in Canberra.
Over the last decade
Australian governments Over the last decade
Australian governments have paid the Big Four firms
Australian governments a staggering $10 billion.
We find big consultant partners
peppered across Australian government departments.
They're in the senior leadership teams,
in agriculture, in the Federal Police, in finance.
in agriculture, They're auditors internally
for a wide range of government departments.
So, they're everywhere and they're really big.
They're now very much part of the inner circle.
But having them so close presents dangers.
The PwC scandal has shown that confidential government information
is not always safe in private-sector hands.
We've certainly got a mounting body of evidence, which alarms me,
about the reach of the large consultants into the public sector
and the serious consequences for us as citizens, for our democracy,
for the value that we get from very big spends
and for the long-term capability of our public sector.
The roof of Parliament
lends a new perspective to this corporate insurgency.
So, in Canberra, proximity is actually everything.
So, right down below me here, proximity is actually everything.
So, right down below me here,
it's the PwC building,
which is closer to Parliament House
than most government departments.
Back over behind me, it's KPMG
alongside its biggest client, the Department of Defence.
In the thick of it here - Ernst & Young.
And then back over this side - Deloitte.
And then back over this side - When it's laid out like this
it really is quite striking.
The explosion in the number of consultants
followed a cull of 15,000 public servants
after the Abbott government came to office in 2013.
A cap on recruitment was also imposed.
A cap on recruitment The intention had been to cut costs,
but consultants filled the vacuum.
Federal government spending on the Big Four
is now six times higher than it was 10 years ago.
If you imagine 30 or 40 years
of resource-stripping from the public service,
flesh was taken off, got down to the bones.
The bones are pretty osteoporotic now
as a result of the inroads that consultancy firms have made.
It's led probably to much higher levels of spending
than in reality could be achieved under the traditional system.
It was one of those boiling-frog problems, you know...
Professor Chris Wallace is a historian and former public servant
who has watched consultants gradually infiltrate the federal government.
And, of course, Canberra's a really small place.
Ex-public-service friends, ex-staffers, ex-politicians
going to consulting firms, coming back.
It's just completely routine in Canberra now
and it's pretty much everywhere.
It's a revolving door between consultancies and government
It's a revolving door that keeps all sides employed.
Many politicians, public servants, that keeps all sides employed.
Many politicians, public servants, ex-staffers
Many politicians, public servants, can be warehoused in consultancies,
and when government changes or there's regime change of some kind
in a particular part of government,
they can, of course, come back from the consultancy,
go into the public-service department
and again be a friendly port of call
for consultants they previously worked with.
This revolving door continues to spin.
Despite Labor pledging to curb the influence of consultants,
the Albanese government has appointed three department heads
straight from the big firms.
Blair Comley running Health -
he's just spent the past five years at Ernst & Young.
Jim Betts, also briefly an EY partner,
Jim Betts, now heading Infrastructure.
And Natalie James -
in charge And Natalie James -
in charge of the Department of Employment
in charge after four years with Deloitte.
(WAVES CRASH)
Labor Senator Deborah O'Neill
played a key role in starting the parliamentary investigation
into the big consulting firms.
She's based on the New South Wales Central Coast.
You know, once upon a time
people were in awe of these companies,
they had them on a pedestal,
you know, PwC, KPMG, EY, Deloitte.
You know, graduates would fight to get their foot in the door.
The reality is these very secretive partnerships
The reality have been shown to be places
where there needs to be a lot more transparency, a lot more sunlight.
There have been failures from the other of the Big Four.
There have been failures We know that they share staff.
We know that information We know that they share staff.
We know that information moves around between them.
We know that information moves not only between players in the sector
but between government and into the sector.
And I don't think PwC is the only company
to have figured out that it might be financially advantaged.
It's KPMG that dominates the big government contracts.
KPMG's largest public-sector client is the Department of Defence,
accounting for more than two-thirds of its government business.
That's $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money
that's come its way over the last five years.
I'm off to meet a whistleblower
who was a senior official at the Department of Defence
and claims to have been forced out
after raising serious allegations
about the infiltration of consultants.
The whistleblower won't be identified
fearing reprisals from the department.
Instead, they've prepared a statutory declaration for Four Corners.
Thanks very much. OK, good luck.
Cheers.
I've had a quick look at this, and it's pretty interesting stuff.
Top line here?
Serious allegations against KPMG
and how they milked the Department of Defence.
In just seven months
our whistleblower witnessed KPMG seeking to over-charge Defence
by at least $1 million.
And that was just on a single proposal.
The whistleblower claims KPMG charged for work never completed
and billed for a consultant who wasn't even on the project.
and billed for a consultant The stat dec went on to say:
The whistleblower claimed connections helped KMPG win a big contract.
Defence dismissed much of the complaint in 2016
despite the whistleblower providing financial reports and documents.
A spokesperson told us that: financial reports and documents.
A spokesperson told us that:
They added:
What I don't hear is anybody calling it for what it is -
an abuse of privilege and power.
Senator O'Neill says consultants are exploiting weaknesses
in the public service.
These companies, not just in Australia, but around the world, in the public service.
These companies, not just in Australia, but around the world,
These companies, not just in operate a land-and-expand model,
where they get in, sometimes under-price the first piece of work,
and once they get in
then they expand their reach through familiarity.
KPMG has had this 'land-and-expand' model
KPMG has had on full display with Defence.
Over the last decade it's won work
that was initially valued Over the last decade it's won work
that was initially valued at $1.1 billion
but later increased to $1.8 billion.
That's a $700 million increase.
The whole business model of these companies is billable hours.
The whole business model of The longer they stay there
the less efficiently The longer they stay there
the less efficiently they do the job.
It's about getting very, very close to government,
finding out what's going on using the contacts,
and then growing the business.
(BIRDS SQUAWK)
(BIRDS SQUALL)
On a steely winter's morning
in a fishing village On a steely winter's morning
in a fishing village outside Melbourne
in a fishing village we meet whistleblower number two.
He'd spent two years working for KPMG on Defence projects
and backs up what our earlier whistleblower told us.
WHISTLEBLOWER: A lot of rule-breaking had been normalised.
He asked not to be identified as he still works in the industry.
I absolutely had concerns
about the quality of work that KPMG was doing for Defence.
I would say that KPMG was doing work for Defence
that ultimately wasn't needed.
KPMG was simply happy, in my view,
to propose these new works, get them signed off
and reap the financial benefits.
He claims those financial benefits
extended to telling KPMG staff
to bill Defence for work that was never performed.
I was instructed to record my time spent on internal projects
against Defence codes.
I think KPMG, in my experience,
are absolutely prepared to break the rules, to be dishonest,
to work in ways that would be unacceptable in normal business
to win more business from the Commonwealth.
And, ultimately, it's taxpayers who are paying for this.
He told us KPMG walked a fine line
when it came to cooling-off periods,
designed to prevent firms profiting
from confidential government information.
In 2019 KPMG hired Peter Corcoran, a senior Defence official,
to run its government cyber-security business in Canberra.
He was banned from working with Defence for 12 months.
We obtained an email titled "Chocks away"
congratulating Corcoran for creating a "storm front of work."
Just two paragraphs later he added:
He says it was a toxic environment for staff at KPMG.
WHISTLEBLOWER: It was pretty vicious and competitive.
There was a lot of intimidation, harassment and bullying.
I was told in one week of three individual cases of harassment.
I tried to raise that within KPMG, and was pretty much rebuffed.
What sort of harassment?
It ranged from sexual harassment to workplace bullying
to making people feel pretty unvalued.
Despite being warned that his career would suffer,
he contacted the KPMG whistleblowers' hotline.
Did you get any more work at KPMG?
No, I didn't. And my contract wasn't renewed.
No, I didn't. What's been the cost to you?
I lost close to 20 kilos in weight.
I lost enamel from my teeth.
My legal costs are still increasing,
and I think in the end I'm likely My legal costs are still increasing,
and I think in the end I'm likely to have incurred more cost
than I ever earned from my work at KPMG.
KPMG's chief executive declined to be interviewed.
In a statement the firm said KPMG's chief executive declined to be interviewed.
In a statement the firm said
the whistleblower's complaints
not being renewed.
had nothing to do with his contract not being renewed.
KPMG said it had investigated claims made by a former contractor in 2019
and there was no evidence to support over-billing of Defence.
As to Peter Corcoran's continued contact with his old colleagues,
KPMG said: contact with his old colleagues,
KPMG said:
Over the last decade KPMG's Defence business has soared.
Its annual Defence billings peaked at almost $450 million last year -
Its annual Defence billings peaked a six-fold increase.
This has coincided with KPMG's a six-fold increase.
This has coincided with KPMG's targeting of former Defence staff.
Four Corners' research shows
that over the last five years
almost 100 former Defence staff have moved to KPMG.
You know if you've got a very senior public servant
with that immense, deep departmental knowledge and extraordinary Rolodex,
you know, they know everybody,
they're a familiar face
that the consultant can then roll into the department
that the consultant when pitching for work.
It just raises the degree of comfort
that government departments have when hiring consultants.
And, of course, it's a two-way street.
(RADIO NEWS THEME MUSIC PLAYS)
RADIO PRESENTER: Good morning. Welcome to AM. I'm Sabra Lane...
I think if go right and then left.
I'm on my way to see one of the senators
who's made it her business to follow the money.
Greens Senator Barbara Pocock helped kick off the Senate Inquiry...
And the Defence Department is squarely in her sights.
BARBARA POCOCK: I just ran into Senator O'Neill.
So, Labor have moved for another new piece of inquiry.
Consultants breed secrecy, she says,
enabling governments to avoid accountability.
If you can sit here. OK, good. You're there.
Yeah. Thank you.
For every dollar that you spend on a consultant,
you remove the possibility
that a senator can ask a question in estimates about...
Why is that?
They're not exposed to estimates,
they aren't exposed to questions on notice
unless they're inside an inquiry and affected by an inquiry.
So, a whole lot of the key transparency devices and tools
So, a whole lot of the key for our parliament
are prevented from really looking at the big spend on consultants.
Big impact on democracy. Has that undermined democracy?
It has certainly undermined democracy. Absolutely.
It has certainly And you have to ask
is one of the intentions of moving And you have to ask
is one of the intentions of moving so much of the government spend
is one of the intentions of moving outside the public view,
is it deliberate strategy
to give certain governments,
you know, cover for what they want to do?
We've certainly got a mounting body of evidence, which alarms me,
about the reach of the large consultants into the public sector.
about the reach of the large Defence is a black box
for many of us who look at government, Defence is a black box
for many of us who look at government,
and I think we need a lot more transparency,
a lot more accountability
and evaluation of the contracting services
into Defence and more broadly.
(ALARM RINGS) Do you need to go and vote?
I do! Looks like a red... Yes. OK. OK. Good. OK.
So, here we go.
(ALARM CONTINUES RINGING)
Sorry to interrupt.
We might walk with you if that's OK. Sorry to interrupt.
We might walk with you if that's OK. Walk with me. Come with me.
We might walk with you if that's OK. After just a year in the senate
Barbara Pocock has locked onto her target.
I really think Australian taxpayers are being ripped off,
I really think Australian taxpayers and it's unethical.
(ALARM CONTINUES RINGING)
I've got to dash.
(ALARM CONTINUES RINGING)
I was beginning to wonder
how the consultancies had managed to keep us in the dark for so long.
(HUBBUB)
I'm back in Melbourne to meet a man who I hoped might have some answers.
Adam Evans is himself a consultant.
So, why are people so angry about what you've done?
So, why are people so angry I think... (SIGHS)
Well, I've probably broken the code, right?
As the owner of a small firm,
he's miffed at how the big guys dominate government work.
he's miffed at how the big guys Democratising the data
and giving it to people Democratising the data
and giving it to people to enable them to ask more questions
I think is gonna make... HAS made some people uncomfortable.
I'd heard it's hard to find out
how much taxpayer money the big consulting firms are really getting.
Adam Evans says they shuffle
between multiple business names and numbers,
between multiple KPMG his prime example.
KPMG is referred to a lot of different ways.
It has at least a dozen different business names registered.
In practical terms what does it mean to the average person
trying to understand how government money is spent?
It makes it very, very hard
to understand from the government's page, the government's website,
to understand from the government's how...as KPMG is the example,
how many contracts they've been how...as KPMG is the example,
how many contracts they've been awarded, what the value is
and what they were called when the contract was awarded.
His database also shows
KPMG's success at up-selling the federal government.
There's been nearly 4,000 contracts issued over the 10-year period
totalling $1.64 billion,
with 1,904 contract amendments.
That's nearly $1 billion in additional revenue for KPMG.
It's about a 60% uplift of the original contract values.
It's about a 60% uplift Wow, that's a lot of money.
That's a significant Wow, that's a lot of money.
That's a significant amount of money.
It's management advisory 101 -
get a contract and make it longer,
and sell more people in.
It's a strategy of increasing revenue and profit
generally intended to keep pace with the client's needs.
generally intended to keep pace They would be looking to increase
their revenue, their market share and their dominance.
Five consultants on billable work
is worth a lot more money to the shareholders than one.
Do you think that the interests of the consultant
don't necessarily always align with the interest of the Commonwealth?
It's a very tricky relationship to navigate.
Australia's tax office is itself navigating this tricky terrain.
It has no shortage of consultants
moving in and out It has no shortage of consultants
moving in and out of its revolving doors.
The upper echelons of the Tax Office are stacked with former consultants.
Amazingly, two of them, whose salaries are funded by us taxpayers,
are still receiving payment from their former employers.
are still receiving payment The ATO has confirmed this to us
but refused The ATO has confirmed this to us
but refused to disclose their identities.
It's a conflict of interest.
And even if it's declared, It's a conflict of interest.
And even if it's declared, how do you manage that properly?
Alright, so, these are conflicts of interest
that are now being discovered as people look more and more.
Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan
spent a decade as chairman of KPMG New South Wales.
His second-in-charge, Jeremy Hirschhorne,
His second-in-charge, also came from KPMG.
Two other senior managers came over from EY.
And three of the ATO's top IT people
were previously employed by tech consultancy Accenture.
Two of them still hold shares in the company,
which has won $1.4 billion worth of work from the Tax Office
which has won $1.4 billion worth over the past decade.
The ATO told us over the past decade.
The ATO told us
framework and process
they have "a robust framework and process
"for managing conflicts of interest"
and less than 10% of its senior executives
had come from the big consultancies.
The consulting firms are your major alternative employer,
and they pay extremely well.
So, this is where and they pay extremely well.
So, this is where
the moral hazard starts to arise.
If you're in a public-service the moral hazard starts to arise.
If you're in a public-service position
If you're in a public-service and you're dealing with consultants
and you think, "Well, that's my alternative employer,"
are you gonna be a bit more keen to hire them?
PwC is case study in just how cosy these relationships can be.
Hi. I'm James Downie.
I'm the CEO of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority.
Until mid last year
James Downie headed an independent government agency
that advises on the price of hospital services and medical equipment.
that advises on the price of hospital PwC was a consultant to his agency.
As well as working for the health agency,
PwC also worked for the very companies
who could profit from the agency's pricing advice.
When conflicts of interest like this arise
the big firms say they have
checks and balances in place
to protect their clients.
I think the notion of 'sterile corridors' is laughable.
And I can tell you that many of the whistleblowers
who ring me and talk about conflicts of interest
who ring me think they are laughable.
People have lunch together, they socialise together,
they exchange information.
We're humans.
When James Downie left his government job -
When James Downie you guessed it - he joined PwC.
Now he's back with the health pricing body,
this time as a PwC consultant.
PwC said it has "rules and processes"
to manage conflicts of interest.
James Downie said to manage conflicts of interest.
James Downie said the health pricing body
James Downie said did not require him
to complete a cooling-off period.
The idea behind hiring consultants
was to bring some business savvy to an inefficient public service
to make the bureaucracy more responsive.
But in many cases the opposite has happened,
But in many cases especially on big projects.
For consultants there's few more lucrative jobs
than overhauling a government IT system.
In early 2020
Deloitte landed just such a job
and struck it big
with a deal that would increase and struck it big
with a deal that would increase almost five-fold in value.
But it is how Deloitte won this deal that is now under serious scrutiny.
NEWSREADER: Those who've lost their jobs in the pandemic
flood Centrelink offices and the MyGov website
as the government backflips on claims the site was hacked.
Deloitte was tasked with upgrading the MyGov website
after it was overwhelmed at the start of the pandemic.
There's lots of probity questions that need answers there.
There's lots of probity questions None of it looks good to me.
In March 2020
Deloitte signed a contract
with the federal government's Deloitte signed a contract
with the federal government's Digital Transformation Agency.
The contract wasn't even awarded in writing.
It was granted verbally and without a competitive tender.
That contract would start at $9.5 million
then balloon to $28 million.
All up Deloitte's work on the project would cost taxpayers $47 million.
All up Deloitte's work on the project The Auditor-General was scathing.
He said the Deloitte contract The Auditor-General was scathing.
He said the Deloitte contract failed in 12 areas of evaluation,
including offering taxpayers value for money.
It was revealed Deloitte charged daily consulting rates
above those recommended by the agency
and its payments were not even linked to results.
A government audit earlier this year
found MyGov fell well short of what had been promised.
Although other parties had worked on the project,
a source with direct knowledge of it
said it would have been easier if Deloitte had never been involved.
Deloitte also declined our invitation for an interview.
In a statement the firm said it was 'proud' of its work
on the MyGov website. it was 'proud' of its work
on the MyGov website.
procurement processes' were followed.
It said 'appropriate procurement processes' were followed.
It blamed the cost increases procurement processes' were followed.
It blamed the cost increases
on software licences and changes requested by the government.
Look, profit was number one, and every time...
Brendan Lyon knows how enmeshed the big consultancies are with government
and how they use these relationships to profit handsomely.
and how they use these relationships If ever you need to back a horse,
you back the horse called self-interest.
He was a partner at KPMG until 2021,
but made the mistake of giving frank and fearless advice
to the New South Wales Government on its rail assets.
It wasn't what the government wanted to hear.
So, they're using consultants to get the answer they want, essentially?
Well, I mean, I think in many instances that we're seeing
Well, I mean, I think they're starting with the answer
and then there is a process of evidence-making that goes around it.
There's a huge amount of pressure to get the answers that are needed.
There's a huge amount of pressure For Brendan Lyon
the required answer was an accounting fudge
cooked up by the New South Wales Government.
The plan was to understate the cost of maintaining the rail assets
to make the state budget appear far healthier than it actually was.
When Brendan Lyon wouldn't go along with this,
When Brendan Lyon a new report was commissioned,
which said what the New South Wales Government wanted to hear.
The profession exists so that we can all have trust
in the way that corporations, not-for-profits,
in the way that corporations, governments and everybody else
account for the monies governments and everybody else
account for the monies that they have.
I guess if we start to see an erosion
I guess if we start to see in ethics and professional standards
in one side of the business,
it's very hard to say
that that's not gonna be a risk across the rest of it.
So, what were you forced out for?
I was forced out because I wouldn't play the game, So, what were you forced out for?
I was forced out because I wouldn't play the game,
because I upset the then New South Wales Treasury Secretary
because I wouldn't sign off
on results that misstated the state's accounts by $10 billion.
What does it tell us how the big consulting firms operate?
I'd say that it was not the sort of culture where bad news was welcomed.
It was more of a glee club around revenue.
And no questions asked about what you're gonna do for it.
I guess I was just surprised by the...
..you know, by the naked motivation
to get cash to ensure that the firm
is continuing to turn over to get cash to ensure that the firm
is continuing to turn over more than $2 billion a year.
The Auditor-General eventually forced the New South Wales Government
to correct this budget fudge.
KPMG has faced no sanction.
In my example, every single person that was involved on the other side
is in a more senior position than they were at the time.
That shows that there is no consequence internally,
there's no consequence professionally.
KPMG has acknowledged that mistakes were made
but rejects many of Brendan Lyon's allegations.
KPMG said it complied with guidelines
on conflicts of interest KPMG said it complied with guidelines
on conflicts of interest and professional ethics.
(ORCHESTRAL MUSIC PLAYS)
We felt taxpayers were owed a better explanation
about how their billions have been spent,
so, we've come here to one of Sydney's wealthiest suburbs
to ask KPMG chief executive, Andrew Yates,
to ask KPMG chief executive, not only about the money
but also about not only about the money
but also about the allegations of misconduct
we've heard from three separate whistleblowers.
we've heard Let's go and see if he's home.
KPMG Australia earned more than $2 billion in revenue last year.
KPMG Australia earned more It's the only Big Four firm
that has not disclosed It's the only Big Four firm
that has not disclosed how much its chief executive is paid.
that has not disclosed The other three pay their CEOs
between $2.5 million and $4.5 million a year.
(BUZZER RINGS)
(METAL CLANKS, DOGS BARK)
(RINGING CONTINUES)
(NEARBY CLANKING)
(DOGS BARK)
(RINGING CONTINUES)
(DOGS BARK)
(RINGING CONTINUES)
That's a bit disappointing. The dogs (RINGING CONTINUES)
That's a bit disappointing. The dogs are in, but he doesn't appear to be.
These big firms
don't have to front up These big firms
don't have to front up to shareholders,
don't have to front up file accounts
or, it seems, talk to us.
(BIRDS TWITTER)
The rise of the so-called 'consultocracy'
has coincided with an increasingly insecure public service.
Chris Wallace has seen this first-hand.
You need to kind of remember how the system used to work.
The public service in a traditional Westminster system, which we had,
is permanent, it's merit-based, it's completely apolitical
is permanent, it's merit-based, and you're there for life.
And at the very top
departmental heads And at the very top
departmental heads could give frank and fearless advice
because they weren't in fear of losing their job.
because they weren't in fear But in recent decades that's ended.
Departmental heads But in recent decades that's ended.
Departmental heads are now on five-year contracts.
So, if you're a senior public servant,
everybody knows if you tell the truth
and it's not what your minister wants to hear now,
and it's not what your minister you'll get fired.
Do you think governments like consultants
because they give them the answer they want?
Put yourself in a consultant's shoes -
you wanna get repeat billings, right?
Repeat business is the most profitable.
If you tell a government what it doesn't want to hear,
If you tell a government are you gonna get rehired?
That's what happened to Brendan Lyon.
Standing up to KPMG came at great personal cost.
BRENDAN LYON: I am not a perfect human being.
I'm not trying to say that I sort of walk around like ethical Jesus,
but when you're being asked to do something that you know is wrong, I'm not trying to say that I sort of walk around like ethical Jesus,
but when you're being asked to do something that you know is wrong,
it's sometimes time just to stand up and do the right thing.
When you're facing a lot of pressure,
you do things that you need to do to cope. When you're facing a lot of pressure,
you do things that you need to do to cope.
You drink too much, you smoke too much, you...
..you spend periods of time inside with all the windows shut
thinking about how it could be different.
Look, I lost about 29 kilograms in an eight-month period
because of the pressure that was on me.
because of the pressure That's not healthy.
The mental-health impacts That's not healthy.
The mental-health impacts were material and ongoing.
(PENSIVE MUSIC PLAYS)
The consultants know winter has arrived.
The Albanese government has pledged
to cut its spending on consultants and contractors
by $3 billion over the next four years.
And the new National Anti-Corruption Commissioner
has signalled consultants are squarely in his sights.
You know, we've all been slow to join the dots
to work out what's really going on here.
This is not about a few consultants behaving badly.
It's about the systematic replacement of a once-fearless public service
with voracious private-sector operators
with voracious driven by profit, not public good.
The question is driven by profit, not public good.
The question is is it too late to fix it?
I think we need stronger governance of what's going on.
When things go wrong I think we need real consequences.
Now, I grew up on a mallee farm
where my dad measured value in bags of wheat and bales of wool.
where my dad measured value We're a long way from that.
And I know as a taxpayer,
and I've lived my life amongst ordinary people,
and I've lived my life they are horrified
and they're in my inbox they are horrified
and they're in my inbox every day now saying,
"What is going on? What is this money for?
"Why are we spending so much on basic activities?"
You've gotta have consultants,
and even back in the day, before the system started decaying,
and even back in the day, consultants were sometimes used.
The public service cannot possibly
have every single element of expertise
have every single element in a deep and timely way
all the time.
And using public-sector advice wisely
in conjunction with limited consulting input -
fantastic.
But this pervasion,
this absolute permeation of the public service as a whole
has really led to a decaying standards of advice, of integrity.
And, you know, without systemic change,
it's gonna be very difficult to turn around.
Captions by Red Bee Media
Copyright Australian Broadcasting Corporation