 |
| Image courtesy Australian Financial Review |
We're reading and watching plenty of media about the big four consulting firms.
My brief experience as a school principal with consultancies was an eye opener, and showed just how much of a scam many of their operations were. Nothing has changed.
Back in the late nineties, I was principal of a large regional special school. There was a department supplied special bus supplied as part of the infrastructure. It was equipped with a wheelchair hoist which allowed children with physical impairments to attend excursions along with their able-bodied peers. The previous three special schools I had led were similarly equipped, as were all other Queensland special schools at the time.
Apparently, providing kids with disabilities equity of access had become a low priority and Treasury had decided that supplying these buses on the taxpayer dollar was a bridge too far, even though the real cost was slight. They were replaced every five years, by which time the Q-Fleet leases resulted in an almost cost neutral exercise. They were traded at a price about the same as they were purchased tax-free by Q-fleet.
The decision had to be justified, of course, so Education Queensland commissioned a firm of consultants to come up with a rationale. The first I knew was when I received a phone call from someone senior in resources branch in head office saying that I would get a visit from a representative of the firm to assess the way in which the bus was being used. Half a dozen other schools statewide were also being investigated.
The consultant turned up shortly afterward armed with copious supplies of paperwork. He explained that he had a range of data collection documents, conveniently mounted on clipboards, that staff would be required to complete every time they used the bus. Information requested included destination, distance, reason for the journey including the educational aims of the excursion, name and role of the driver, and an approximation of the cost of the fuel involved.
Once completed, the documents were to be forwarded by post to the consultancy. I asked him what would be done with the information. He replied that it would be collated and sent to Treasury. I asked what the firm was being paid for the exercise, but he wouldn't tell me, claiming "commercial in confidence".
Off he went, back to Brisbane. After considering what my already overworked teachers were being asked to do, I phoned a few of my principal colleagues, who expressed reservations similar to mine. Eventually, we agreed that this task was beyond the role of our teachers, and one by one, phoned central office to break the sad news that we wouldn't cooperate. All the consultants were being paid for was to enter information into a database, summarise it, and forward it to central office. This information was not received with enthusiasm by head office, and comments were made about the career damaging possibilities of this non-cooperation.
The Union became involved, and that was the end of the exercise. Treasury pulled the pin.
Looking back on it, the episode was emblematic of how the use of consultants, on taxpayers' funds, has crept into public institutions. The current malfeasance exhibited by the big four is simply a sophisticated evolution of the process.
It's gratifying to see it called out at last, but great damage has been done to what used to be a frank and fearless public service. Between this and Robodebt, it's time for public service reform.
Unfortunately, the wound will take years to heal.
Comments closed.
