According to the article, the recruitment was from the private sector and pays the market rate. If this was nepotism, then I would had agreed with the waste argument. But just because someone is being paid 10x the majority, doesn't make the decision to recruit them wrong.
It doesn´t make the decision wrong. It´s a supply and demand game isn´t it? It´s hard not to second guess in this matter, but you have to presume that the cost to replace them is much greater.
It's easy to get up in arms about consultants being paid a high rate. But who really knows how much time and money was wasted among the 50,000 staff that was laid off? This is a very difficult question to answer, since "performance" can't be measured accurately.
Exactly. A consultant's job is to deliver results from day one. If not, they're quickly out the door. The same can't be said for staff because they are considered an investment by their employer and therefore kept around much longer despite how much the drop off in "performance" may be compared to a consultant.