Anyone understands why the Australian senators are attacking Deloitte's executive compensations instead of the government leadership that signed the pricey contracts with consulting suppliers in the first place?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.