A smaller consultancy bill would not, by itself, show that government has regained the knowledge, skills and freedom to manage its relationships with the firms.
The pattern of spending going up despite promises and dependency are global. The fact is the civil service is in part to blame. The idea that it would be disruptive to have new suppliers while the government builds its own in house leadership and management capability is risible. As if they cannot manage a transition like that or just find people and bring them in to run it in house
We find the public sector is the same in Australia. The growth in public sector numbers continues and so does consultancies. Why? And why is that in all the scandals surrounding KPMG in Australia they were awarded constracts to run ethics programs.
Weak, weak, weak. Time the public sector is held to account for these choices. No wonder the consultancies grow.
I think you raise an important point about accountability on the government side. Consultants don't award themselves contracts. Public bodies make those procurement decisions, and they should be able to explain why continued outsourcing represents better value than developing internal capabilities.
The Australian experience certainly raises similar questions. What interests me particularly is whether government departments are genuinely assessing the long-term costs of dependence, rather than simply the immediate costs and risks of changing suppliers.
They say they do Claudine but the levels of passivity and lack of accountability are mind boggling.
Only last week one anti-corruption commission report found that a group of very senior people 'hid' $250m from government. There were no consequences. One an 'under secretary' is now in Canberra promoted to a higher job. Others have moved departments. That's a lot of money. A lot of covering up. Yet no consequences of any real kind. It's as though they exist in a vacuum. An 'accountability free zone'.
This means that the departments are full of 'integrity risk', that is a consultancy with some nous can easily exploit this lack of accountabiltiy and be happy to take it on (for a fee). And then they leave behind a report that the department then has to decide if and how they'll act on.
It's a vicious cycle. Perfect for consultancies. When and how this started is a point for historians. The challenge is how to end this.
We are watching in Australia from a distance and no doubt from Malta close up Europe in chaos. France, Belgium, Spain, Italy and other parts where people feel government does not address their fundamental concerns. Cost of living, the fixing of schools, a rise in debt that means that every additional dollar (or Euro) spent pushes up more debt, creates pressure for higher bond prices, then increases in interest rates. This flows through to making housing affordable.
All of these concerns are in the hands of governments to address. It can only happen when a civil or public service give advice to governments on how fight their way out of it (and how to avoid in the first place). The great beneficiaries of this are the extreme left and the far right. As WB Yeats put it, the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. We cannot afford for the sake of liberal democracy to have our civil (public) sector fail. Yet they are failing.
It is enormously concerning. Keep at it Claudine. If you need to migrate out of the mess come to Australia. There are more people from Malta here than in Malta! But the same failure awaits. Keep an eye out for a future article, when did Australian lose the ability to reform. We used to be good at it as did some EU countries. Now we lost that. I'll send you a draft.
The pattern of spending going up despite promises and dependency are global. The fact is the civil service is in part to blame. The idea that it would be disruptive to have new suppliers while the government builds its own in house leadership and management capability is risible. As if they cannot manage a transition like that or just find people and bring them in to run it in house
We find the public sector is the same in Australia. The growth in public sector numbers continues and so does consultancies. Why? And why is that in all the scandals surrounding KPMG in Australia they were awarded constracts to run ethics programs.
Weak, weak, weak. Time the public sector is held to account for these choices. No wonder the consultancies grow.
I think you raise an important point about accountability on the government side. Consultants don't award themselves contracts. Public bodies make those procurement decisions, and they should be able to explain why continued outsourcing represents better value than developing internal capabilities.
The Australian experience certainly raises similar questions. What interests me particularly is whether government departments are genuinely assessing the long-term costs of dependence, rather than simply the immediate costs and risks of changing suppliers.
They say they do Claudine but the levels of passivity and lack of accountability are mind boggling.
Only last week one anti-corruption commission report found that a group of very senior people 'hid' $250m from government. There were no consequences. One an 'under secretary' is now in Canberra promoted to a higher job. Others have moved departments. That's a lot of money. A lot of covering up. Yet no consequences of any real kind. It's as though they exist in a vacuum. An 'accountability free zone'.
This means that the departments are full of 'integrity risk', that is a consultancy with some nous can easily exploit this lack of accountabiltiy and be happy to take it on (for a fee). And then they leave behind a report that the department then has to decide if and how they'll act on.
It's a vicious cycle. Perfect for consultancies. When and how this started is a point for historians. The challenge is how to end this.
We are watching in Australia from a distance and no doubt from Malta close up Europe in chaos. France, Belgium, Spain, Italy and other parts where people feel government does not address their fundamental concerns. Cost of living, the fixing of schools, a rise in debt that means that every additional dollar (or Euro) spent pushes up more debt, creates pressure for higher bond prices, then increases in interest rates. This flows through to making housing affordable.
All of these concerns are in the hands of governments to address. It can only happen when a civil or public service give advice to governments on how fight their way out of it (and how to avoid in the first place). The great beneficiaries of this are the extreme left and the far right. As WB Yeats put it, the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity. We cannot afford for the sake of liberal democracy to have our civil (public) sector fail. Yet they are failing.
It is enormously concerning. Keep at it Claudine. If you need to migrate out of the mess come to Australia. There are more people from Malta here than in Malta! But the same failure awaits. Keep an eye out for a future article, when did Australian lose the ability to reform. We used to be good at it as did some EU countries. Now we lost that. I'll send you a draft.